tv American Perspectives CSPAN June 26, 2010 11:00pm-2:00am EDT
a prospective judge. you have to look at their life work. that will be a clear reflection of who they are and how they think and what they will do. in the end, getting to know the person is very hard from an artificial setting like a hearing. i think over three days that you get some sense of what the person is. it does have value. . . hearings for prior judges. i wonder whether you think today's confirmation process serves the public well. >> i do not. i am not sufficiently involved to say precisely what reforms should be made, but i think that the way in which the candidates are scrutinized is often shameful, that it has caused extremely qualified candidates to withdraw from being
considered, and i would hope that we could somehow move beyond the bork style of confirmation proceedings and come up with a way that would be respectful of the candidates, respectful of the president in making the choice. that does not mean it has to be a rubber stamp, but i think it is highly destructive and very bad for america. >> actually, i do not think it is true anymore since pork, because there is this -- you have almost a camp atmosphere now in a lot of the hearings, where there are very carefully crafted questions senators ask that are almost designed to reveal something more about the senator then to truly and disinformation. having observed all of the post- bork once. >> i am not talking about just
the supreme court. >> i was talking just about the supreme court. i think right now you have an unusual minuet going on, where you have sort of stage questions and very cautious answers. and i do not know if the elena kagan hearings will move or from that. marie has probably read her argument in the law review about how when she was a staffer -- a temporary staffer to senator biden's committee during the ginsburg hearings, she felt it was to stage and to much of a charade. she complained, not sitting where she is going to sit in a couple of weeks, that as an observer it did not yield much information to the public. >> the robert bork ones obviously yielded lots of information to the public, with a very unhappy ending for robert bork. since then, it has not been as confrontational at that level >>
what about thomas? >> that was an unusual situation. if you look at what happened before the accusations from anita hill, that was very much of questions from senators, a response from the nominee, and not much follow-up from the senators. >> i hope i live long enough to see the day that a nominee to the supreme court says to the president "if you are going to nominate me, i am not going to appear before the senate judiciary committee. that is my condition. i will take the job otherwise." elena kagan was right. the process is vacuous. it is meaningless. it is insulting. it is degrading. it is beneath the senate. it is beneath the court. they have turned it even into a greater circus, if you can believe that. this business of going up there two days after you are nominated
by the president and meeting with these empty vessels who sit in the united states and that an attempt to have a meaningful conversation with them about substance, i mean if you have seen that clip of elena sitting there with orrin hatch, in which orrin hatch is pointing out how beautiful that model of the flintlock is that is hanging on his wall -- how insulting can you be to a person of dignity and equality to ask them to sit there in front of a camera and mug the camera in the interest, perhaps, of persuading orrin hatch, who has a serious election contest coming up next time, that he should vote for you when his constituents probably do not support you. the republic would be safer if we did away with nomination
hearings to the supreme court, and maybe to the lower judiciary as well. i can tell you i have been around when they did not do it. >> the first televised once were for sandra day o'connor. i actually think there is something legitimate about them because it is the last time that you are going to see this person that has been appointed to a lifetime position. and remember justice stevens said to me, "mine were so painful." i went back to this transcript. he was approved unanimously. this is painful? when sitting in the chair, you are in the hot seat and you feel uncomfortable. i remember chief justice rehnquist, when he was up for his associate justice ship in the fall of 1971, at a fellow from arizona said he was so comforting. i get the point from the nominee's view that it is awfully tough, whether you are at the supreme court level or below, but i think for the
public's appreciation and what the public should demand of a nominee who is going to go on for a lifetime appointment -- we should have hearings. >> this will mark the start of the fifth year of john roberts as chief justice. let us listen to him talking about the role of the court. >> i think the most important thing for the public to understand is that we are not a political branch of government. they do not elect us. if they do not like what we are doing it is more or less too bad, other than impeachment, which has never happened, or conviction and impeachment. when we needed decision, it is based on the lot and not a policy preference. for example, if we reach an environmental decision that comes out in favor of environmental groups you often read "court reads in favor of environmental group. all we are doing is interpreting the law. the decision has been made by
congress and the president. we are just exercising our responsibility to say what the law is. we are not ruling in favor of one side or another. i think that is important for the public to appreciate. >> on the screen will be some of the major cases of the roberts court. i will ask our panelists to help us understand the early history, if you would. anyone want to tackle it? >> i cannot see the screen. [laughter] in this high-tech age, there ought to be an angle you can see it from all sides of the room. >> there are several on there that do not really count because they are not interesting. antitrust legislation -- there is a certain sector of the bar that is interested in that, but
generally -- i do not doubt that the kennedy case from louisiana was terribly important. i think there are two cases that really, to me, tell us what the roberts court is all about. one was the opinion by justice kennedy in the most recent ruling on the war on terrorism issue. literally the most important decision on executive power in generations, at least since 1952. the position that the court has taken on executive power in the years that john roberts has been the chief justice has been nothing short of truly amazing, because we all remember -- i
hope we have not forgotten it -- the degree to which the second bush administration wanted to enlarge the powers of the executive branch, the unitary executive theory. the court stood up to that and said and no. it truly was a moment in history when, as a journalist, you want to quietly cheer and say go for it. somebody needs to say what you just said in this case. the other case i think that for me marked the roberts court if nature was the seattle and louisville case, where the supreme court reachee out to take an issue on voluntary efforts to desegregate public education in urban centers. and the court reached out, where
there was no split in lower courts. they took that case in order to reverse. and i recall just as brier's dissent from the bench. to me it was one of these paradigm shifts that you see in the court pick history, where if you were there, as i was, when cowper versus aaron was decided, and when the court was trying to work out all of the sequels to brown versus board -- to see the seattle and louisville cases come along, and to see them dealt with as they were, first of all, was astonishing. second, it told me in a way that nothing else has that we are really in a new age with the roberts court, a very new age in which cultural change, it seems
to me, will be a hallmark of what the court does for the next 20 years or so -- major cultural change is on the agenda for the court. >> i think the seattle and louisville cases were the more interested set of cases. having argued affirmative action cases for the university of michigan, i follow those closely. i have a different reaction than lyle to what it told us. there were important cases. the court system here important cases. i think the majority opinion, in many ways, was quite measured. they could have reached out and said that diversity was not a compelling interest. instead, it was an application of the principles that had been established. justices can disagree about how
those principles apply, but that is what they did. it was not surprising to me at all that a majority of the court could reasonably read it gridder and find those programs do not conform to the standards that had been established in that case. i saw it in a very different way. >> lyle referred to justice briar's -- brier's dissent from the bench, which was quite compelling because it was the last day or sitting at the term. another dissent that was notable was justice stevens's dissent in the cases where he said he believed that no one who had been appointed -- who had been on the court when he arrived in 1975 would have ruled that way, which was an interesting perspective. as any member of the public looking at these opinions, it is always good to see how the
justices themselves might view a major shift. >> i think the seattle and louisville cases would have gone further if justice kennedy had not undertaken to file a separate opinion qualifying the scope of what the court did. i see in seattle and louisville as a pair of decisions that were held back from their potential, held way back from their potential by the role that justice kennedy place. by the way, i know it is a hackneyed phrase, but these days i think it is entirely appropriate to talk about the court as the kennedy court. in case after case where the court is deeply divided, it always comes down to kennedy. that is the one nomination succession that i am waiting to see.
>> in the clips that we showed at the beginning, just as briar talked to us about the process of granting certain cases. we are not going to show a video clip. we have a graph about the caseload from 1980 until the present. you can see back in 1980 there were about 5000 petitions to he court. the court agreed to hear 136 cases. look down to 2008. almost doubled. nearly 9000 petitions, and the number heard was just 82. what is happening here? >> the court has gotten lazy. [laughter] in 1982 and '83 terms, the court decided to see 150 cases. this term, there will probably decide 80. the term before that it was 74. it seems to me that if the
caseload is rising the output also ought to rise, but in fact the country seems to be true. i have heard all of the arguments by the justices that they can do a better job if they decide fewer cases, and justice scalia once said to me "there is not that much interesting out there. why do we have to take more cases?" by the way, on your statistics, you do not have a footnote which shows the number of cases that are filed pro se. that is a bit arcane, but when a person files their own petition for review in the supreme court, they do it on their own behalf. in every 25 cases that i see, and i looked at all the big cases as they came in -- in every 25 cases every week i look at, at least three of the 25 are
pro se, and i have yet to see more than one case in 30 years that was a pro se that was meritorious. whatever percentage that is, you can reduce that number. there has been an exponential increase in the filing thepro se petitions. the court needs to look at that and see whether or not it is too easy to do that. i know justice stevens always to cents when the court reduces the opportunity to appear before the court and bring in a case and seek court approval of it as a proper case. but i honestly think that there is -- and let me say this in a positive way. because i have such admiration for the intellect and the competence of the justices, i think it could be doing a lot more and i do not think the quality would suffer if they
did. >> it depends on which way the lower court ruled and whether you really want the supreme court to get involved. justice o'connor has said it might be a good thing that the supreme court is not involved in as many cases. but i think there are also some changes in the law that have caused those numbers. one is the limits on what was known as mandatory appeals to the court. right now, for example, and voting rights cases and campaign finance cases -- the way congress had written that law, the court has to take those, but the court had a lot more jurisdiction that congress said had to go to the justices. some of its mandatory jurisdiction has been removed. also, what the court does mostly is look at splits in the circuits for lower court discrepancies where a court in
the west might be ruling differently on a matter than the court in the east. the justices might want to resolve that. there could be an argument that maybe there are not as many circuit differences as the might have been before. i think it is more than pure inattention or laziness, but i do have to say i would never like to show those figures to editors, because i do not want to show that back when you and i were covering it in the '90s that i was doing twice as much work because the court was doing twice as much work. >> advocates would always like the court to triple the docket, that is for sure, but i do not know the reasons. i have heard some people speculate that it might be related to the rise of electronic databases and the courts are reading each other's opinions more than they used to and there is greater uniformity among the courts of appeals then there was once upon a time. >> oral argument is the most
public part of the court's work. members of the public who are lucky enough can get seats to listen in, and the press corps has an opportunity to watch. we asked the judges their views. >> i learned when i got here that it is a lot harder to get in a question on a bench of 9 than it is on a binge of three. it had been my practice on the court of appeals to try to wait to the end of the lawyers paragraph before interrupting with a question. here, if you do that, if you wait until the end of the sentence, you will never get a question in. you have to interrupt to make your voice heard. >> i think i have a keen underrtanding of what it is like to be at the receiving end of questioning, but i also know
that as an attorney i welcomed the questions from the bench. some lawyers regard questions as interruption in an eloquent speech they are preparing to make and, but an advocate wants to know what is on the judge's mind. she will welcome questions as a way of satisfying the judge on a matter the judge might not resolve as well without counsel's response. >> council whhat is your view? >> she is exactly right. any advocate worth their salt what comes questions. you are there to find out what is troubling the justices and you want to get right to it and you do not want to make a speech. it is a great court to argue before. the number of questions can be astonishing. i think in one of my arguments
there were 56 questions in 30 minutes. it is nonstop and it is an enormous challenge. i think the justices really want to know the answers to the questions. it is great. >> with all the preparation we have learned goes into the cases before they get to the court room, we asked some of the justices whether the argument was actually needed at that point. what is your view on the role of argument? >> it helps focus them. the justices are actually trying to get information from the lawyer who is standing at the podium for them. but also they are trying to telegraph where they are at on cases. effectively, it is the first time the justices will be discussing the case in the round. the will not have met at all yet on the case they're hearing before they actually take the oral arguments. so they might be telegraphing where they are at on a case. they might be suddenly making
arguments to each other, as well as the primary purpose of trying to get information from the lawyer at the lectern and try to get the best answers. they are the ones who are going to have to write up the ruling. primarily, they are going to rely on what is in the written briefs. all their work is written and documented based on precedent. but they might be able to focus an argument or get an answer to something they were not sure of by what goes on in the question and answer. >> my impression is that it is the most important agenda- setting conference of the justices. very soon after they hear a case, no more than two days, the preliminary vote will be cast on a firm or reverse. the content of the oral argument goes toward framing how the
court will address the case when they first get together for a private conference. for that reason, i think it is really unfortunate that justice thomas does not participate in oral argument. i think it has been three terms now since he made a comment or ask a question. because of this agenda setting potential at least that the oral argument has -- i do think oral argument has the capacity to influence votes. he changes his mind about 25% of the time after an oral argument. that is a very high percentage figure, i should think. and so it is an institution, it seems to me, that needs to be preserved. i am not persuaded that it needs to be lengthened. 30 minutes a side seems to be
adequate. >> no. [laughter] >> by the way, i have the utmost sympathy and admiration for council that appears before this court. let me say the court before justice sotomayor joined -- the court before she came with david sutter -- suitor souter was one of the most intelligence courts i have ever countered. no court i had ever covered before was its match. i do not know whether sotomayor is up to that. she is very good. what we have seen from her so far is most impressive. in fact, more impressive than i expected it to be, because i had seen some of her arguments on the second circuit and she is better than i thought she woold be. but i am not sure whether or not
she is that next level up of intellect that the court had when it had david souter. to my mind, he was the smartest just as i have ever covered, with apologies with apologiessbryer, who is awfully smart to. >> we asked justice thomas when he chooses not to ask questions. this is a brief response. >> i think it is hard to have a conversation when nobody is listening, when you cannot complete sentences or answers. perhaps that is a southern thing. i do not know. but i think he should allow people to complete their answers and their thought and to continue their conversation. i find the coherence to get from a conversation helps you to understand your questions. i do not see how you can learn a lot from 50 questions.
>> i will let that stand without comment. >> he is just wrong. >> if i could just say, at least the year i clerked justice brennan hardly ask any questions, and i do not remember him being ridiculed for it. so i am always wondering why there is so much focus on the fact that justice thomas does not like to ask questions. >> the problem as i see it, and maybe this is a perspective of the press, is that it leads to perceptions that are not well- founded. clarence thomas is entirely equal to the task of being a justice of the supreme court. there is no doubt in my mind. in some dimensions, clarence thomas is a brilliant justice. the quality of his work on the court is really first-rate when he is writing. i think he is an exemplary member of the fraternity when they are writing.
unfortunately, and i hear this from many people, is he not smart enough to ask questions? whether or not a justice really concerns themselves with public perception, i think it is injuries to his legacy, after all of these years of being a high quality justice, to how people perceive that he is not up to the task. i think that in the 60 minutes of oral argument, and by the way justice roberts does now allow some of the cases to run on longer than 60 minutes, and i find that a positive thing -- i do not remember very many cases i have heard over the years where i thought that the rapid exchange between justices must
not allow managing. if you get a really bad logger committed a really bad lawyer -- but that is rare to. most people who make the argument before a court of competent to do so. i think oral argument is the label and i wish clarence took part in it. justice kennedy plays a role with a swing vote. this is a count of 5-4 decisions since the start of the robert court. and to a dozen five, 10 of 79. 11 in 2007 of 74. to date in 2009, 35-4 decisions.
there is justice kennedy talking about the process with obvious enthusiasm. >> just prior made the observation that in the tigers before he goes into conference, and so do i.. it is like being an attorney again. you are arguing your case. i have eight colleagues who have studied very hard on a case, who may have very fixed views or maybe tentative, depending on how they have fought the case through. and i have to give my point of view and hopefully to persuade them. and i feel a sense of anticipation, or adrenaline rush. i do not know what they call it. this is a big day for us.
we sometimes have as many as six cases and i have to present the argument in four cases. i have to be professional, accurate, and bear, and each of my colleagues feels the same way. there is a little tension of excitement in the room, but we love it. we are designed to do it. the job is no fun if you cannot argue. >> and the interest of time, i would like to move to the next clip, which is all about the process of the court getting to an opinion. >> i always want to write a majority. who would want to write a dissent? descents are more fun to write, i have to say that. when you have the dissent, it is yours. you say what you want. if somebody does not want to join in, who cares? this is my descent. it is what i want to say.
when you are writing a majority, you do not have that luxury. you have to craft it in a way that at least four other people can jump on it. you try to craft it in a way that as many people as possible will jump on. which means accepting some suggestions, stylistic and otherwise, that you do not think is the best, but nonetheless, in order to get everybody on board, you take them. >> i love that clip because it is so justice scalia, talking about it like it is a toy. it is mine. the only child that he is. it is so true. he has obviously had a lot of fun writing dissents. they are probably the best written opinions that anybody on the court has done since they joined. but they are not what rules the land. that is his point. he has to compromise in
language. he has been doing that more. obviously, he had the big second amendment case of two years ago, when the justices ruled for the first time, by a narrow 5-4 vote, that the second amendment embodies an individual right to bear arms, not just a red a state militia. justice breyer dissented from that. justice scalia kept everything in check, was disciplined, and got the majority opinion. >> the opinion writing process, i must say, is a very admirable process. if you spend any time in the wonderful manuscript division here at the library of congress, looking at the process from the inside, when the justices have saved their papers, and you see it -- if you have the illusion, and it is a pure illusion, that this process is undignified,
that it is something that is not to be admired, you are very wrong. because when you look at the papers, the internal papers, the deliberations are serious as they go through the draft. the comments -- warren burger used to make some very unpleasant comments about women in some of his comments to other people straps. but on the whole, the process is a really remarkably admirable process. you read to draft opinions and see the joined memos or the dissent memos. you come away from it and you say, "that is really the way it ought to be done." we do not get to see the conference's at which justice kennedy loses it. and i think it would be very nice if now and then we could have a look into the conference room and watched it happen, which is not going to happen,
but the whole process is one, it seems to me, that the american people can have real fake it works pretty good. >> speaking of looking into the court, it is just about time for your questions. i'll have my colleagues at either side of the room has a wireless microphone over to you. one of the most frequently asked questions we have c-span is "when it will cameras going to the supreme court?" since the year 2000, c-span, along with other media organizations, have occasionally petitioned the court for a same- the release of the audio tapes the make of each of days or arguments. the graph on your screen is our success rate. the top line is the number of requests we have made each year. the green line on the bottom shows that our requests have been increasingly turned down. i want to turn to our panel for
comments about the openness of the robbers court in general, and if you would like to offer your own perspective, we would love to hear it. >> i would just say that this film is an indication of the openness of the robert cort, and the fact that the justices participated in this and allow this to happen is, i think, a great thing. in terms of cameras in the court, i know what they are going to say, and i know you guys think, but i am very sympathetic to the idea that it is not really in the interest of the justices to do that, for a couple of reasons. just look what happens on youtube every day. the way in which images can be distorted and cast about -- what public service goes along with that? the transcripts are available. people can read it if they are interested.
justices also are able to enjoy a sense of anonymity. i know chief justice rehnquist used to love to go to the grocery store and not be recognized. given the security issues today, those things are significant. i do not know. i am certainly not going to object if they want to have it. you could be a movie star, right? >> but i am very sympathetic, at least to the justices who do not want it. >> i think it is a matter of constitutional law, and i think the court has got it wrong. in the richmond newspapers case in 1980, the supreme court said that the process of justice is an open process. actually, they said that as long ago as craig versus party in 1940. it ought to be an open process. for the court to pick and choose between the media -- the forms of media that undertake to cover the proceedings -- seems to me
to be engaging in what is a form of first-amendment discrimination. my colleague, pete williams, from nbc, would be a wonderful person to be standing outside the courtroom and narrating a film about the oral argument, because he understands the court. i frankly am never persuaded by the argument that the court is so fragile that it could not survive televising. it is a pretty hardy institution. if you expose it to television and -- i have seen editorial cartoons about the supreme court, which if i were sitting up there i would be well. the court is not going to lose public respect if it goes on television.
it will only gain respect. i will tell you that would very likely is going to happen -- if you watch a television program the broadcasts in full the argument on patent law and get into the degree of of business of the patent and the formula for what is patentable -- they had better put that on between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m., because it is only going to serve the insomniacs in the audience. but that is not the routine case. most of the case is over there are fascinating. the court had a decision yesterday on the custody rights of parents who live in different countries. it was a fascinating case. it would have been wonderful to put them on television. even if it were not unconstitutional to pick and choose between the forms of media, it seems to me it is a public process that would be spectacular for the court to be
on television. they do it at the state level all the time. if you are afraid, stay in your chambers. do not meet the public's interest in the court a hostage to your concern about your anonymity. it just misplaces the values entirely. >> if you live elsewhere in the country and are watching this, through news -- through new procedures at the supreme court and the internet you can follow every case through every filing that has been made, every breath that has been submitted. that goes up on the same day. you can see the transcripts of oral arguments and see which justice asked which question.
we used to not have access to any kind of transcript. we have justice's listen to -- justices listed by name. >> you may not know this as a matter of history or historical fact, the court could not change the process of identifying the justices in the transcript until after bit -- byron white had retired. byron always said that the questions are posed by the court, not by an individual justice. years ago, we started lobbying the court to put names in, because sometimes if you are not where you can see the full bench one justice's boys sounds like another.
some, we can always tell by the length of the question, if not the tone of voice. but sometimes khalil cents a little bit like a leto and sometimes roberts sounds a little bit like a leto. the point is that it is an enormous help to us now, and i think to the public as well, to have the justices identified on the transcripts. and that is a real benefit. it is also a great benefit to have the transcripts on the same day. before this process was instituted, you had to wait usually a week to buy it from a highway robbery firm that charged to $5 a page. just calculate 55 pages, which is the usual length of an oral argument transcript, at $4 a page -- at $5 a page. that is $260. the baltimore sun could not afford that for a lot of cases.
now they are available on the same day basis. they are available in fall or ray, and you see who the justices are. sometimes a reporting service gets it a little bit wrong, but we tell them about it and a correct it. these are great advances. they are probably among the most important things that john roberts has contributed to, in terms of press coverage of the court. >> thanks to our panelists. let us as to anybody in the audience has a question for us. >> i actually have three questions, and i will let you decide which you want to take. the first is what do you think is the fact, inside and outside the beltway, of the citizens united case. the second is, you talk a little bit about the role of solicitor general. what you think? does the personality matter? the third question is more pop
culture. did you see a recap on hbo and did you think that was informative for the american public to see how bush versus gore would look in the supreme court? >> it is an extremely important role because the united states brings many of the cases to the court and participates in most of the cases. so the position that the united states advocates can be very influential. in terms of whether the personality of taken verses also matters, i doubt it. i think the court is looking to the solicitor general, basically coming to the court, maintaining credibility, bringing the quality of that office, maintaining the quality of that office. you can have a lot of different personalities that do that. i do not think the personality matters what.
-- matters much. they want somebody who is obviously up for the job, and both are. >> what about the effects of citizens united? >> let me take that one. i think we are on the threshold of a major change in campaign finance law. we already have now another case before the court. it is a republican national committee case the court is going to consider at one of the june conferences, which is the first sequel to reach the courts. that is a very important case because it attacks another part of the 2002 campaign finance law, the soft money banned. right now there is another case called speech now, which is a case -- this take citizens united completely back to buckley vs allejo, where the
court drew a distinction constitutionally between expenditures and contributions. the speech now case destroys that distinction between the two. what citizens united did, not only on its own merits, which is the question of unlimited spending by corporations in the campaign process. it opened the possibility that the court will sort of march, one step at a time, toward a complete renovation of the entire process of paying for presidential and congressional elections. i do not think it could be any different. we are also seeing, by the way, very strong push back from president obama on this. and it is going to become an issue, i think, repeatedly, as the president continues to try to carry on his populist agenda. i do not think it is possible to overestimate the importance of
citizens united. >> we have run a little bit over our projected time. i am going to ask we allowed john to exit the stage. >> how often are lucky enough to have a ruling to commentate on at the state of the union and then have chief justice john roberts a few weeks later comment on the adversarial state of the union. i thought for the news guy you and the public interest value it has been a good case that defines the court and generates more public attention and congressional attention. for less question, i did see recount. i thought it was a lot of fun. i thought it was just theater tv rather than a true reflection of what went on in december of 2000. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> a reminder that we will have
copies. >> i think bush versus gore was rightly decided. >> who else has questions? >> i am interested in knowing a little bit more about the role of the courtroom news artist and how that might help bring visuals to the public and better inform the public of what people act like and how they are in this visual world we are in. >> i am sorry. say it again? >> the courtroom sketch artist certainly is a useful thing, for people to have a picture of the court, since there are no cameras. generally, i think the depictions can be pretty good. i do not think it is a major issue in court room dynamics.
>> the supreme court is very hospitable to sketch artists, but the other day i was down at the d.c. circuit court. the court was hearing a case on the war on terrorism. ray randolph was one of the judges, a senior judge randolph. there was a courtroom sketch artist, bill tennessee, who was there. just as randolph sent a note down that he did not want to tennessee to be sketching in the court. so bill took his large sketch pad at out and deposited it in the press room and came back with a little reporter's notebook of the type many of us take into the courtroom and proceeded to make his sketches anyway. i went back out after the hearing was over and he took up the big one and did people color portrait of the court. he got a very nasty telephone
call. fortunately, ray is not on the supreme court. i think courtroom artists to a fantastic job. they're wonderful people. bill has a great book called "all rise," which is a book of his images about the court. i do not think they are an adequate substitute for televising the court, but they do illustrate the court in a very nice way, and i know the lawyers really love them. bill and the nbc guy and the others to do it make a lot of money selling color copies of these two arguing counsel. [laughter] >> anybody else have a question? we asked justice briar, since we have had controversial statements read the evening, if he would like to respond or at
any closing comments. would you like to do that? >> i am glad i have the chance to be here. i find it personally and lightning, interesting, and useful. is there anything i would emphasize? >> i think i would emphasize one thing that is so dull that it is not a subject of press normally. the press are made up of human beings and they are writing for human beings. the thing that interestt people most is other eople. that is a great thing. there would not be a human race without it. at the same time, that is not our job. most of what actually goes on, i just want to say, is less than meets the eye. most of my day is spent, every day, doing something that was not in the pictures and we did not talk about very much.
it is reading these misnomer things called briefs. they are not brief. they are 50 to 60 pages or longer. in each case, you will get 10, 15, and sometimes 120. unlike the certs, i read all of those. if there are 80 cases, i will be skimming a few to see if there is something new. but i will look at every one of them. and then i will have a memo written. and then i will read the memo discussion with my clerk. and i have read the briefs before i go into the oral argument. i mention them because i want you to see what i think is the heart of this job. i think an awful lot of people have seen it this way. it is reading through those arguments and try to understand them.
it is not a contest. . . >> what we're trying to do is to work out a better, rather than over solution to a difficult legal problem that it charges tied to split its audit, it would not even be there. i know perfectly well that many of these decisions will affect hundreds of millions of people who are not in that room. and they are not being represented. and you will never see them on television, even if the television is there. then that when you look at that on the television, then you might think this is an oral argument and which is the better lawyer. that is not how i see it. whether the television it is
there or not. it is what is the role that will come out of this case that will make this area of a lot better or worse set of rules called walz under which people live. everyone feels that way. while we're doing is a professional job. people are not screaming at each other. if we get annoyed, we hide. what happens is that people go or around the room and they try to explain succinctly what it is at the point they are at intellectually of that they think about this case and how it should come out. and everyone also knows that nobody really cares, no matter what they write, about what i happen to think about a case. what they care about is what the court thinks. the court is made up of
individuals who have to pay attention to each other in order to get a result. we know that, too. eventually, what i will do is sit at the word processor and i will write a draft. my law clerk will have will read the briefs again and she will get the draft and think that hers is a lot better and i will probably try another one after she gives me another one and that is an endless process. what is the job like? i explained this to my son in high school. i said that his reading and writing. if you do your homework well, you can do -- you can get a job or the will to home work your entire life. at the end of the day, there is a document.
what ever they say in the newspaper, i am happier if it says that this is good, but i try to keep my ego out of that. my ego has less of a role than it does in many places. i remember the ambassador to india came back and someone asked if it was an interesting job. he said it was so interesting that he found that he did not think about himself 4 seconds at a time. [laughter] you can be a bit removed. ultimately, there will be a document and unlike legislation which is not supposed to be this way, a good opinion, if it is meeting proper standards will give you, in that document, the
real reasons why the judge reached that decision. alternately, the impact of what we do is in those essays. it is not what people think about them initially. it is how judges and lawyers understand them and apply them in the area of the law. i have never heard anyone in that room say that we had too little or too much work. sometimes people speculate that we could take 100 cases. why haven't we taken them? i do not know. i think that your laws have been passed and i agree with what montaigne said in 1584, that when you have a statute, every word is a new argument for lawyers. i do not know the answer to that. i do not think that people really worry about whether they are anonymous or not. i think that they take it pretty seriously and i think that you
think that they take it pretty seriously and that is what i got out of this. there is no right perspective or one perspective. i can try to explain what i do every day, and it is interesting for me to hear what other people think, having somewhat a different perspective on the same process. that is a long winded way of saying thank you for having me this evening and for putting this program on. [applause] >> i would like to close with a couple of thank yous. our production team televising this live tonight and our marketing staff who put all the logistics' together. to our terrific panelist for their comments and for the
justice for being here. thanks to all of you for being here. thank you very much. [applause] >> c-span recently conducted a poll that looks at the public's awareness and interest in the supreme court confirmation process. a look now at the findings. ngs near. in advance of that, c-span has worked with a polling company, robert green is the principle, to do a new public opinion poll about the supreme court public knowledge and attitudes. thank you r being with us. guest: thank you. host: a couple of major findings. first of all, if we could go to
the details -- which of the three branches of the federal government is best serving the public interest. what did you find question on guest: we found that of the three, the judiciary was seen as best serving the public's interest. 48% said the judiciary branch. 27, the legislative. 25, executive. host: did the data tell you why that was? guest: there were some additional questions that gave insights. of the three -- i would say at the time, it is fair to say, it's fair amount of public dissatisfaction with the government, the federal government, and of the three branches, the one that is the one the best is the judiciary, in their view. host: another finding of this poll -- tell people about h many participated and what kinds of people participated. guest: likely voters in the next
general election, which is, of course, the fall. we conducted 1512 interviews, it was conducted late last week, june 18. the margin of error is 2.5, 95% confidence level. host: i think this is the third sensible you have done with us, so we can have tracking questions -- third such pulled you have done with us. the senate confirmation aring. there is ddscussion about where it gives good inside of the nominee. guest: what we learned is the senate confirmation hearings, in fact, don't particularly give good insights of the qualifications of the nominees. 59% say fair or poor inside. essentially three of the five kely voters. 41% say excellent or good. this was a little bit of a surprise.
host: this is also an interesting statistic. as i just showed you -- "gop bears down on kagan." you asked how many could name the individual president obama nominated. these numbers are pretty impressive lead tilted. -- yes, only 19% could identify -- we ask the same question a year ago with justice sotomayor, an 24% drop from last year. in other words, only 19% could coorectly name elena kagan as the potential to -- as a nominee, excuse me, to the court, a potential justice. host: it has its work cut out to stir public interest by monday. over all, it is it because people are not adjusted who is being nominated tohe court? what is your additional questions tell you about public
interest? guest: i would say, yes, there are a series of other stores that have simply dominated the news. i think sotomayor's nomination -- obviously both women nominees. at the time of the respective nominations. but simply other news this crowding out the nomination. host: last question. we don't have it on a graphic. but you could tell us a statistic, when you ask people today whether it matters and nominee is male or female? guest: basically, most of them, above 60%, say it doesn't matter. what does matter, truthfully, is they are less interested in -- i think the sense of diversity is a bit different now. host: what does diversity mean? guest: over 60% say ty wish
the nominee was not from harvard, yale, or columbia. there is a sense that perhaps we are a little less averse than we need to be in terms of background, the legal training of the people nominated for the court. host: thank you for being with us. we have the full result -- a result of the ball on our website, c-span.org. and questions about the interest inelevising the court's
on the border security. >> i believe that this is the civil rights issue and not about race but class. >> monday we have madeline sackler, at 8 eastern, on c-span's "q & a." >> next canadian prime minister, stephen harper holds a summit with members from germany, russia, japan and the united states. the meeting focused on economic security and funding of child care in the developing world. this is 20 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. [speaking foreign language] -sp.
>> the g-eight has committed >> the aid has committed $5 billion u.s. delivers over the next five years. as new money. we have contributions by all departments that raises it up 7.3 billion. so we insisted on the need to be accountable for our actions. and we have discussed many international issues, nuclear preparation, iran and the implementation of the
resolution, 1929 of the u.n. and the korean attack by north korea. and the iranian government has chosen to threaten their neighbors with arms. now we need to ensure that these expenditures are not the only costs associated with this. so we have discussed about afghanistan, pakistan instability in that region. and the situation in the middle east and climate change. we must stick to our commitments, because this puts into play our credibility. and g-8 needs to be stronger and we have common goals.
and i was now looking forward to welcoming the g-20 countries. >> but we have focused the g-8 on the strengths, development and peace and global security challenges. the g-8 has committed an additional $5 billion u.s. over the next five years. and with our partners bringing the total to 7.3 billion on the initiatives on new board and child health. accountability will be the key as we moved forward, and we put increased emphasis on that. we discussed a further range of global challenges, nuclear proliferation, iran, and sanctions foreseen by resolution 1929. and also north korea and that
incident. there is a threat of weapons and this is not their only cost. we discussed afghan tan and pakistan and middle east and climate change. it's essential that the g-8 keep its promises going forward. this is essential for the credibility for this organization. the g-8 has energized and its members share common interests going forward. and i look forward meeting my colleagues of the g-20 in toronto. >> we have a few questions, and start with brad harris. stand up and the mic will come over to you. >> mr. prime minister, you have
mentioned that you have refocused and reenergize the d.a., however, as you go into the g-20, we >> you mentioned that the g-8 showing of g-20 aide will be handed over the agenda. many say that this could be the last g-8 that we see in north america and may be folded in with the g-20. could you speak to that? >> yeah, i seriously doubt that. i would say last year at this time there was a lot of talk around the table. i think i speak clearly for all the leaders of the g-8 and the discussion we had last night. we had a discussion specifically about international institutions and international architecture. and i think there is a greater understanding. as we get into the g-20 process.
there is a greater understanding of the necessity of also having a forum of like-minded advanced countries who can exchange views in a much less formal setting. and who can sometimes quickly bring resources to bear that others don't have on certain types of complex world problems. the g-20 has done a magnificent job so far in the year-and-a-half it's been around. and has been tackling the economic crisis. but there are quite frankly limits in what you can discuss and achieve in a group of 20. and there is also more participants. and it leads to much less formal discussion than like the g-8. and beyond the economy there is much less commonality of purpose than at the g-8.
as i said i think all the leaders at this point would be pretty strong in their view based on the discussion we had last night. that the g-8 is a pretty essential organization going forward. but our coordination with the g-20 remains equally vital. >> madeline with radio canada. >> mr. harper. >> you say that it's not very probable that this is the end of the g-8. because you said for the last year-and-a-half we have managed to prove the importance of this summit. is it the fact that you don't call upon to deal with economic issues? is it the fact that you have given it over to the g-20 that has insured the survival of the g-8? >> firstly, the g-8 can discuss
whatever it wants. pecause the g-8 given its reach and size has the possibility of having informal discussions on all sorts of areas. including the economy. but our shared idea around the table that it's essential to have a larger group, a more representative group. so as to face up the challenges posed by the world's economy today. there is no longer enough of the world economy around the g-8 table for us to really be able to take decisions for the whole world. we recognize that. at the same time the g-8 brings together the countries have that common values. developed countries.
and on a much larger number of subjects in the g-20. the g-8 is able to have informal discussions given its nature and better able to arrive at a consensus because of its action. so for those reasons the g-8 will be important. for the united nations and other bodies will also remain important for us. >> mr. prime minister. wondering what was the nature of discussions as far as fiscal consolidation is concerned. wondering if the g-8 has reached some kind of consensus on targets or the issue that you can carry to g-20. and what they thought of the targets that you proposed.
>> well, while there is informal discussion in the g-8 on the range of matters, including economic matters. the g-8 does not preside these issues to not affect the g-20. but i have written on many occasions of the fiscal consolidation. of deficit and debt levels. not as know end of itself, but as a part of a range of tools we need to entrench and maintain the global recovery. so we will have good discussions around that in toronto. but my sense is that there is a strong consensus around the necessity for mid-term plans on fiscal consolidation in advanced
countries. >> mallory from the press. >> yes, mr. harper on the question of climate change. you talk about this in the final communicate, and you speak of global warming and i would like to know the heritage of the summit on climate change? for both summits i think that the g-8 and g-20, infact we have declaration here. but at end of the day this is a discussion to prepare extremely important discussions that will take place in the u.n. process in the autumn. i think that countries gathered
here today realize the need to work together to truly achieve a legal binding committee for all countries in the long-term. that's our goal. we had long discussions about this. but at the end the real process is the u.n. process. and we are all determined to be sure this process will be successful. >> just a couple of quick points if i may. the language on bilateral trade deals, does that suggest that you concede that (inaudible) is dead. not going anywhere. i think that was the first time we have seen that language. >> were you going to ask a second question? >> in afghanistan the conflict and concerning general
mcchrystal and how much conflict is there? >> two good questions, first on trade. i don't think it's any secret that the do-hal round has run into difficulties. everyone agrees that we must complete this round, and looking at language in our g-20 to advance that objective. and to have a successful round in the do-hai, we raise our level. and the area of canada are committed bilateral trade deals as a way to kick-off the process. and as you know around that table, canada and the european
union are involved in a trade deal between our part of north america and europe. we will continue to look for ways to move do-hai forward. i would never say it's dead, i don't think it's true. we have to find a path over time to get to a successful conclusion. at the same time those of us who favor liberalized trade won't stand still. we will make sure that we work through all avenues to advance that objective. >> chris hall, cbc. >> sorry, you asked me an afghanistan, david, i almost forgot. afghanist afghanistan. everyone recognizes that the challenges there remain significant. we are under no illusion, almost everyone around the g-8 table is
involved with afghanistan directly or indirectly. we realize that challenges remain pretty severe. that said i think there is general recognition around the g-8 table that we have to continue to put our shoulder to the wheel to ensure that what we leave behind is a stable afghanistan. that will be a positive contributor to the world security. and not a potential source of terrorism or a potential failed state. we all agree that this remains an overriding essential objective for all the countries in the world. >> chris hall. >> prime minister, as you talked about common purpose in the g-20 around the economy. what concerns you have for canada and the global recovery. if greece is forced to restructure and what impact that
could have down the road. to get the debts of gd ratio back in store. >> i think chris, what all leaders recognize, and we don't speak here simply the g-8 but can speak the g-20 conversations. we all realize that the world economy is fragile. and that there are many risks going to that recovery. that said, i think we all recognize is the following. that what we must avoid at about just about all costs is some disaster and to avoid an event that would cause a downward spiral in the global market. that i think, that lesson from
2008 and that risk today is what overwhelmingly drives all g-20 leaders as we look at problems we see before us. there is talk in europe about sovereign debt crisis and defaults. there has been further talk in various countries about the pressures this create on the banking system. but i think what you have seen. every time you have seen those kinds of problems is the countries involved working with their g-8 and g-20 counterparts and others in the financial stability board. working quickly to ensure that no short-term catacosmic event occurs. we remain engaged and watchful of those kind of situations. the g-20 is an opportunity to take a somewhat longer time
horizon. in this case we are talking about a mid term horizon, a three-five years opposed to a year to year, and look to what we can do to boltster this recovery going forward. >> we have time for one last question, going toronto, mike. >> prime minister, when we headed into this summit, there were a lot of talk between europe and the united states when it came to debt reduction and stimulus spending. as you go into tonight's meeting, how confident are you that the leaders will agree with your proposal with the targets to get rid of the debt by 2013, and getting the debt levels down. or will we be stuck with the consensus that each country will go in their own direction?
>> we will see, i am confident that we will have good discussion. my observation at this particular g-8, i have never been at a g-8 that regardless what the subject has been. whether economic matters or security matters or development matters. i have never been at a summit where leaders seem to more deeply feel the necessity of common action and purpose. why is that? some of it may be, some of the personalities around the table and the generation change that has taken place in the g-8 over the past few years. some of it, i am sure are the enormous crisis that faced us. some of the major security
challenges around the world, they mentioned iran, north korea and the middle east. some of which really represent serious threats to the stability and ultimately the economic future and prosperity of every country. i think given the generational change over the past years. given the nature of the event and it is challenges that confront us. i have never seen a g-8 more fundamentally united in purpose. more frank if its discussions. and i think that will carry forward in the g-20. in the g-20 we have a collection of leaders who obviously have a great deal more diversity in the terms of the kind of economies and societies they are governing. nevertheless my sense is that commonality of purpose will move
forward and people understand of arriving at solid terms for the global economy. >> thanks everyone. >> thank you. >> sunday, canadian prime minister, stephen harper holds a conference at the summit. he's the host. with a number of countries attending, including germany, japan, and the united states. the g-20 summit is focusing on the global economy crisis, watch the news conference on sunday afternoon, 5 p.m. at c-span. and president obama's remarks as
he leaves the summit. now the discussion on efforts to pass an energy bill in the wake of the oil spill. we will hear from a defense council, an energy department official, and an energy reporter. this is hosted by politco, due to a technical problem, we are unable to show a portion of the event. >> good morning everyone. i am very pleased to welcome everyone this morning on the behalf of the press foundation, i am linda, our president, bob myers is here this morning. we are an independent nonprofit. we are not affiliateed with the press club or any other group.
we don't take money from the u.s. or any other government. our mission is to provide education and resources for journalalists to help them do their jobs better. and i want to start by thanking groups that are helping. first the sponsor of today's briefing is the kiplinger foundation. and politco is a sponsor that covers congress. we have invited three experts in the discussion, two are here and we expect the third. to introduce our panel, i will turn this over to martin kady, the editor for politco. >> thanks.
we have been able to do a bunch of these panels over the spring and summer. we talked about an oil spill panel about a month ago. and we thought if it was going to be timely enough and yes, we could do an oil spill panel six months from now and it still will be relevant for people in washington and around the country. we wanted to get started and focus more on the washington response, the legislative possibilities and federal action. we don't want to talk about the extent of oil spill and top kill and all the other things going on in the gulf. like linda sa said we have two panelists here, we have david
goldston, from the department of the interior, with the fun stuff of the departments under scrutiny and being reformed in the wake of the oil spill. in the center is a colleague of mine, mike soraghan, the energy reporter. that means he's very deep in the oil spill, bp politics and climate change. he's cover it all on the hill. we are seeing developments and what was reported yesterday, that we may have actual legislation in the senate on this right after the july 4 recess. 60 days in congress, which is usually fairly slow to respond to things. seems like it will get something on track. the big question is how broad will it be?
will be with a quickie oil spill bill. or will democrats use this to jam it up with a lot more of their long-term energy and climate change priorities. what we are reporting today that harry reid wants to take the oil spill and reforming bill and put in more controversial stuff. put a price on carb, and cap and trade. those are in play. we thought they were dead. but the politics are in place to have a more aggressive energy and climate bill thanks to the oil spill. i want to defer of specifics to our experts. let me let mike talk about what is on the legislation and what may be in and out and where the policy debate is.
>> good morning everybody. as marte said, state of play. state of play is basically that you have an energy debate that was kind of stumbling along. people with different plans. the oil spill has basically scrambled all of that. the vote counts, the ideas that people had, offshore drilling was supposed to be the way to bring democcats and republicans on. and that's kind off out. i won't go into it as much. but the president has kind of been bobbing up and down in the opinion polls. and with an uneven perception of his response. he's tried to rally the troops on climate change. using the oil spill. and there is much indication that has taken hold. but he did get a lift in the
last week of all people his opponents. joe barton, the oil industry's lawyers. regulators won't stop drilling. it will slow down but you probably won't see the drill ships headed back to the deep water any time soon. so what you have in congress, as i said, you had -- energy was stumbling along. but one of the key plans was to use, one the key plans of people supporting some sort of energy legislation, particularly climate, was to use offshore drilling as a carrot.
to bring on, a lot of people thought republicans, the reality was that it was bringing democrats, mark warren and jim web had something they wanted off of revenue sharing or sharing the federal loyalties of the states or opening up the florida coast. revenue sharing is still on the table. florida coast is out. so harry reid has a whole mix of things innfront of him to mix together. and we are seeing, and the news from yesterday, a way that he is trying to put that together. but, and that is to hitch climate and oil spill. but the possibilities, the different revenue cards that he has to put together as he tries
to cobble together 60 votes. he's got oil spill liability, the $75 million cap on economic damages. and ems reform, revenue sharing, some sort of renewable energy to be used by a certain date. and the biggie is price on carbon and some price regulat n regulation. there are big ones and the oil spill bill. and there is a scaled down energy bill, sometimes called the scala. and a lot of times called energy only. so one school of thought said
all there will be is oil spill legislation. they got to do that. they can't do anything else. the next school of thought, they will take this bill with the rems, the renewable energy standard and add on the oil spill bill. and that's enough to carry renewable energy standard over the line. and then you have the eternal optimist of john kerry and joe lieberman, the price on carbon and some regulation will come out at the end. because the nation will see the light. it's hard to see a clear path to any of this. even including nothing happening. so because -- democrats rallied
behind that kerry/lieberman approach yesterday. and harry reid is planning to load up or add the climate legislation, the energy legislation to the oil spill legislation. that is kind of considered must-pass, even though they don't know what it means. when i try to put it together, it makes my head hurt. and i am probably confusing you too. congress has to pass something on the oil spill. liability reform, mms reform, new drilling regulations. and the question is how much freight will that train carry. i think renewable energy standard is pretty easy. price on carbon is pretty hard.
so you kind of have a lot of different paths leading over the horizon. to we don't quite know where. and against that back drop, congress is running out of time. these guys feel like they have a month. because they do. they have about a month of legislative time, maybe a little more. because they'll come back in july and leave in august for five weeks. and then comes labor day, and that is campaign season. and there will be not a lot of time for legislating in there. maybe wrapping up business and some appropriation bills. so the question is not just what they can do and how to get the votes. but how can they do it and what is for congress a fairly compressed period of time.
that's about all i know. and if i confused you, please ask questions later. >> i will ask david about regulatory you are probably an expert. mike mentioned three things that get done. liability reform and mms reform and some sort of drilling reform. these three things sounds like they could get done putting aside cap and trade. could you give us an overview of what should change in these proposals? or what should change being on the inside of these areas? >> sure, my name is david be bernhar bernhardt, thanks for having me. marte used the word jam. the tone of that statement
versus the tone yesterday in the energy committee is quite striking. senator bingaman, recognized the need to be thoughtful as congress formulates policy for its response to the disaster. and the first order of congress' business should be to take care of the families who this affected (inaudible). everyday day through the walks of life. >> hi, david. >> morning, sorry to be late. and senator bingaman laid out a position on terms of legislation that congress could use to create the organizational resources and principles for say
development going forward. and senator mccowski's tone whose support of legislation and to improve. his tone was very similar. and was directed at, look, let's get these right as we do them. and i think that, that tone is quite a contrast to what you discussed, to what you raised this morning, marte. and we all hope as part of developing new public policy as it relates to oil and gas activity on public lands. where congress has carte blanche under the policy to establish the rules and regulations. that, that bipartisan tone would continue.
and we would see improvements and congress would look at what action they take. i had this in the interior of certainly activities that fell out of the deep water act of 1995. that act was a provision that was put in a conference report in the last minute. 10 years later members of congress had a strikingly different view of what that act had intended to do. and also how the department of the interior had administered that act between '95 and 2007. i think there is a real opportunity when you recognize the significance of the energy as it relates to the gulf and the consequences of activities in the offshore. that congress be thoughtful in what they do.
i hope that the tone in the energy meeting yesterday is a good start and what you mentioned this morning. >> thanks david. i want to introduce another david. i haveeto go david one and two. david goldston is director of governmental affairs. spent a lot of time on the hill. i have heard some very hopeful words from david to my right. about congress being thoughtful and bipartisan. and maybe i am too cynical and covered congress too long. thinking that in an election year that thoughtfulness and bipartisanship will come through in the next month. i am cue this up to you david goldston, we are doing a play on
oil spill and legislation. politco reported that harry reid is going to put the oil spill bill on the floor. but he wants to put a lot more in it. there is talk of putting a larger energy bill, a larger climate bill. i think his strategy is to start big and pull back as they go. what is your look at this crisis, is this the time and what we shouldn't let go to waste? >> bipartisanship, it would be great. i am reminded supposedly, gandhi was asked what he thought of western civilization. he thought it would be a good idea to try it. and that's where bipartisanship is there these days.
when i left the hill, i thought that everything was as polarized as they could, and i was wrong. and you could think that things in the senate are pending. but i think it's true, that the oil spill has made it impossible for congress not to move forward on energy legislation. and i think that's good. i think obviously there will be a number of aspects of that. we would like to see issues to handle what we know about the spill, or the disaster, or what it should be called. the provisions designed to increase oil savings, increasing u.s. demand for oil by moving ahead of fuel economy standards and so forth. since most oil is used for
legislation. and we think that legislation should be attached. the president noted the immediate problem in the gulf is a sign of a deeper, longer standing problem on energy policy. and you need to change the basics of how we do energy policy to get at that. and in addition energy efficiency and renewable energy provisions. the good news is there are lots of those floating around the hill for many sources including republicans. the question is how to put them together. there are elements of all of those. senator collins has a comprehensive climate bill. senator louver has an energy bill. there are republicans with elements of republican ideas on each element i mentioned that should be in a bill. how to pull them together and get enough people to pull
together and vote together, is still going to be a challenge. we think that the momentum is moving towards comprehensive legislation, which hasn't been the case for a while. we will see. we will see what people hear when they are back home for july 4. >> i want to get in, you mentioned some republican ideas. and that's an interesting aspect. we know that the democratic ideas are. we talked about cap and trade and putting a price on carbon and renewable energy. two years ago and i am sure that mike was there too. when we went into august recess and gas was close to $4 an hour. i covered the republican conference going into the house chamb chamber, the darkens house chamber, pelosi wouldn't turn on
the lights, and they gave a speech, more drilling. drill baby drill. now it's 2010 and the energy debate is clearly different. what is the republican strategy here? what are the republican politic behind this? they are best known as the pro-drilling. what is the alternative on the senate floor without being anti, or filibustering. >> you have a number of republicans who are offering ideas. i think one thing is, they are very much in a bind. that the joe barton situation just amplified. they have been aligned with oil companies. and they usually had a way to
take that position that aligned with oil companies and cast it as lowering your gas prices everyday at the pump. it won't work in this situation. because we are not talking about prices. and so joe barton very kind of crystallized that issue. and so that came in a very inconvenient time. because they were racing towards, and still are, taking a lot of seats away from democrats. because they are sort of small-government message was starting to catch on after some elections. now i think, the party, the republican party seems kind of confused, except that they are not in disarray. they are still united against most democratic proposals now.
you have a couple of democratic ideas. the main cone that comes to min is senator louver and the cap and trade and the price on carbon, the climate regulation, he wants to replace that with fuel economy standards. and that seems to be the main operative idea as we head into the intense negotiations. maybe other people have a different idea, what their primary ideas are. but i think you have louver, and i think that republicans are having to retrench after the joe barton affair. >> what do you think their
strategy is or should be, besides just no, on this bill? >> i think there strategy should be to suddenly like climate legislation. no, i think they are trying to figure out what to do. i think they had fallen somewhat by accident into the just vote against everything strategy. but it seemed to be working. and now it doesn't necessarily work. and it's hard to know if a low common denominator strategy can work in this environment. i think they will try to make it seem like a one-time incident that is a result of a bad actor that doesn't raise any larger questions. and that's really been the strategy, if there is a strategy, so far. on a gut reaction level, you have a range of views in the republican party. including the view that emerged into daylight with congressman
barton, who i think was speaking very sincerely in a way that he wasn't and couldn't when he tried to reverse course. you know, our concern is that this probably does indicate a larger problem. that the regulatory system is broken. has been broken for a long time. we don't have a good sense of how great the risk is. what the risks are. that's why there needs to be an investigation. and we will have to see where that leads us. no one is talking about shutting down oil drilling. but we need to know as we go into deep water what the risks are. and as the president rightly noted and as numerous predece predecessors have noted, there needs to be a way to solve the
problem. it's not just an environmental problem, but international security problem. and we have made no progress despite efforts in the past or despite speeches in the past. we have made efforts and standards, when fuel economy standards were frozen, we lost ground. energy became more efficient over the years, and transportation did not. there is plenty of evidence that every time we tried to work policy, they have worked. and the technology has moved ahead. i think it's really, one of the sad things. the problem with energy issues used to be, that they weren't partisan, and they were regional. and that was confusing. and now we have made them partisan and regional. and as many things, many things
that were bad are a golden age by comparison. we need to get past that. there is no reason these should be partisan issues. except the way that everything has become so ideological. and evidence doesn't matter and why it's hard to get change. one of the lessons about the lack of regulation being bad for business, i think is the way we had to react to the deep water horizon accident. if there had been a good regulatory system, you could go in and see what went wrong and make quicker changes. the reason we need an investigation is because we had a broken system. and if you had an faa type system where the overall system was relatively reliable, what
you do after an accident is less severe. industry understands that regulatory system is one of interest. and now we are so ideological that lesson gets lost. we will see. but i think it will take a while for people to come around. we hope that enough individuals in the senate, which used to be not so good about simply voting along party lines. can have an actual discussion of these issues and move us ahead. >> one thing that cries opportunity, you mentioned that politically regulated an agency with problems seems to be the easy part. but what the general public and what voters will hear about and what will resonate in campaign
ads, is cap and trade. those that were in areas whether southern virginia and are getting crushed in the campaign ads. but cap and trade are the one things you are hear. what are the chances of that getting any where near 60 votes in the senate. is there some sort of scaled back alternative where it's sector by sector or just utility version versus economy wide. let me start with mike. >> for starters, i don't know. i think that as i said, harry reid starts off everyday or every time he thinks about this, with this series of cards. and maybe with each vote attached to it. and tries to see what adds up to
60. i think he would like to do cap and trade. well, as (inaudible) said, cap and trade is dead. at least in the senate. and i happenithink he would lik a carbon trade. >> how is that different? with the average voters? >> cap and trade -- and this not my area of expertise. but generally cap and trade is a fairly detailed market scheme in which companies can trade futures on pollution essentially. the right to pollute. which i recall that gail morgan got in a lot of trouble for
saying. i find that ironic. that's a trading system, companies that need to pollute more can trade with this cap that is being rationed downward. price on carbon has been more elucit to me. one aspect has been this -- what do they call it, transportation user fee, a gas tax. a certain pass-thru of a per gallon fee on gas. and that's considered by some to be sort of a less invasive, less pervasive smaller government solution. and then there is a lot of trial balloons that will be floated over the next few weeks as harry
reid tries to pull this bill together. >> the question is what gets the vote. and that is essentially by the bill. and it changes every day. so it's not at all clear to me. in the end when i covered the house it was all about 2-18, because that was a majority of 1-45, and in the senate it was about 60. >> david goldston, is there some sort of scaled back or alternative to an economy wide cap and trade system that would be in progress from your organization's perspective? >> we will see, we are still pushing for a comprehensive bill. is it something i can get close to 60 votes. we can get close but the problem
is getting the 60 votes. the whole system to get 60 votes for everything is the separate, larger problem. that's the question. the way that we will evaluate legislation is does it get meaningful reductions. meaning something in the neighborhood of what the president called for, which is 17% cut by 2020. this reduction in carbon dioxide from 2005 levels. and 80 or somewhat percent by 2050. and that's the issue. and does it move us . .
there is a long windup and then a short time when things start moving. to get to the definitional things -- the key element in all of this is that you limit the amount of carbon pollution. everything else is mechanisms. the question is, is there a workable way to do that? how do you do it? how do you make sure that you do it in a way that is equitable to consumers into industry -- and to industry? those are things that can be worked out -- i do not mean that they are simple or that they
immediately fall into place. if we can get agreement on the first of -- the interesting thing is that most, if not all, senators agreed that climate change is a problem that we ought to be -- it depends on how many caveat the put around "o ught" -- but ought to be regulating it. the rakowski debate -- rakowski -- murkowski said he believes this is a problem that we ought to be doing something about. that gets overlooked. that is a huge change over recent years. almost every member of the senate on both sides of the aisle says the science is real, this is a problem, we need to
figure out a way to move forward. we need to actually get something moving forward. it is hard to do that without a vehicle that something -- that is something for people to vote on. it is easy to overlook the degree to which things have changed since i was in the house four years ago. it was much more a subject of debate in the political arena, not the scientific arena, about the fundamentals. that is not where we are any more. that is progress. it is not tangible yet, because we do not actually have a system in place -- the house did pass a bill. we need the senate to take a vote. >> do you want to weigh in at all on cap and trade or implementation of any sort of -- >> i am rather skeptical and dubious that comprehensive legislation will emerge between now and the august recess. i think the concept, generally, of saying, we dare you to vote
now -- even in this situation, it leaves folks some opportunities to explain why to vote now. the position on climate is generally pretty hardened. that said, they might get it. the other question i have about this but no one really raised is, if it is far less than a comprehensive bill that emerges out of the senate, will the house to simply take that or say, wait a minute? in the policy debates that started when david was up there in 2001 through 2005, there were times when, in conference, you could not get both sides to pull back from particular issues. therefore, the conference could not emerge. one issue at one time, then there were others. i'm not sure, if you get just a straight bill through the senate, if the house will be
prepared to just take it and not want to say, well, maybe we can do better, or vice versa. i am very skeptical that they're going to get something within the timeframe that they have. that is my two sense and it is worth what you paid for it. ->> i would love to have a problem that david just outlined. [laughter] it depends -- they will have some brought -- some version of the problem. they will get some kind of legislation. they have to figure out what the conference it with. it adds speculation on speculation. we do not know what is coming out in the senate. we do not know how the house will react. everyone agrees that this is unlikely to be conference before the election. -- to the conferenced before the election. we will see pretty will not be
short about things to write about, although it may be the same thing over and over again for a while. we're good at that. >> looking ahead to next week -- not next week -- after the july 4 recess. what particular senators should we be watching, if you have decided to follow this debate? who are the senators to watch? beyond the obvious chairman and leaders, who will be the swing votes and those who could make a difference on both sides? who are you going to stop in the hallways is what i am really asking? [laughter] >> i will take whoever walks by. they all walk by eventually. what matters in both sides, when you start getting down to passing real legislation, is the people in the middle. they tend to start getting -- to be the best at avoiding an ambush in the hallways.
oxfdthe blanche lincoln's, ben nelson's, lugar, r murkowski. you're saying in the trade press and the capitol hill press -- these people's positions are becoming much -- lugar's position was the subject of a story in our publication the other day. just his position alone. we're not really asking what's bernie sanders position is or what jim inhofe's position is. what is blanche lincoln going to do? what is ben nelson going to do? what is senator levin -- senator lugar going to do? what is -- what the people in the middle to is where it will be made or broken.
>> that her mind the -- that reminds me of something said earlier. it used to be regional, and now it is partisan. when you talk about individual votes, you have to think about corn in the midwest, royalties and the gulf coast, -- royalties in the gulf coast, and other sorts of energy projects, including home state jobs. that is how you win over votes. that is how they broke through last night on financial reform. digital will carve out four massachusetts banks -- they did a little cart veout for massachusetts' banks. they need to buy off a few. what are some of these home state issues we could see emerge? >> david, you're familiar with this. how do you get lugar, collins, a
gulf state senator? >> again, i think, the larger issues are still in footfall. while it is true that the middle will be the ones that decide, if there is also a question of what the senators who are most committed to this will accept. it is still a kind of chess game, as it often is. in terms of what specific issues, i would say there are two different kinds of regional issues that come up -- or individual issues. there are fundamental, real, structural issues on the ground. then there are things that you need to do that kind of sweeteners, which can be legitimate -- it is a legitimate process. those two or sometimes inflated, especially now when people are so cynical about the government. i bring this up because, for example, people say, well, we do
not like some of the deals in the house bill. you look at some of these "deals" -- there are ways to help midwestern utility customers because their utilities are more cold-based, to make sure they did not see an unnecessary spike in utility rates. that is not a service winner. that is actually taking care of a fundamental problem -- that is not a sweetener. that is actually taking care of a fundamental problem. the nebraska of medicaid program was much more, what do i have to do to get your vote? that could be legit. i will not defend that particular example. does any energy bill of that -- and the energy bill affects different regions differently. making sure that midwestern energy and utilities are treated equitably is a legitimate and fundamental issue that will come
up. the gulf states are going to be worried about what the bill does in terms of oil. the coal folks are going to want to make sure that it does not have an immediate impact that is devastating on coal. these things all have to be taken to russia. the house bill shows there are ways to take care of those legitimate issues -- these things all have to be taken care of. this house bill shows there are ways to take care of those legitimate issues. with any kind of legitimate energy bill, you need to make sure the transition is taking care of. we're trying to move the basic u.s. and she system into the future. you have to bring people along -- u.s. energy system into the future. you have to bring people along. there are centers were not is this -- there are senators who are not interested in this for local reasons. we have to see what happens. the first thing to get the fundamentals right and then look
at what kinds of things are needed to help make the transition in a way that is the most equitable and the most smoothbore everybody involved, without undermining -- smooth for everybody involved, without undermining any one individual region. then we can worry about other issues. it is important not to confuse these fundamental issues about how you make the transition with narrow sweeteners, which has created problems. people say, it is just a dirty process. the process is come to that extent, is exactly what it should be -- people representing the interests they have that they are supposed to represent and figuring out how to keep them whole as you move to a system not necessarily has to be different than the way we look now. >> did you have more on this? >> that was quite an explanation of horsetrading. >> you missed the point.
it is beyond horsetrading. >> from my perspective, i think they start with the political and policy perspective to account for risk. i think that is what he is saying -- how do you line goes up? there are tremendous uncertainties. if you're going to get revenue sharing in the gulf or in new areas, how does that play out with a new dynamic? cobbling together the dynamic is a lot harder than we might want to speculate on. but it is always hard i think we have a big problem -- >> it is always hard. i think we have a big problem setting up a scheme. for example, additional drilling by giving resources to specific states on the basis of their oil policy. i did not think we have a problem figuring out if state -- figuring out state distribution systems for revenues not based on that. that is, again, a policy
question that may or may not have to be dealt with in this bill. >> there are range of views on whether the house bill was the right mark or not. david starts in a slightly different place. >> beyond regional, you have a different fight between industries. nuclear wants etc. etc. if you view this from a distance, you tend to see the carbon-burning industries as a kind of unified front. that is really not the case, especially when it comes to coal versus gas. these guys are kind of stabbing each other under the table and left and right. gas suppliers are growing very rapidly in this country. the gas industry is trying to grab market share from coal. it is kind of interesting that you have a lot of people who otherwise would be opponents of
a climate bill, people who deny the science on climate who are now in a position where it is in their interest to advocate for some sort of climate -- that is to say, the natural gas producers and companies. you have another dynamic there, which is these industries fighting. the question of the, do they support a bill so that they can -- so that they are at the table? or do they fight a bill so that nothing happens until the political dynamic changes? a lot of people expected to be a lot fewer democrats -- expect there to be a lot fewer democrats after the election. they expect a possibly republican-controlled house. there are fights between industries. >> that is another great aspect
of this debate behind-the-scenes -- the lobbying. the carveouts and exemptions that everyone is trying to get. have not the utilities got behind a specific cap and trade approach, like duke energy? does that stab the other industries in the back like you mentioned? >> there are shifting sands on that. i think that a lot of gas producers felt that utilities got -- particularly coal-burning utilities got way too much deference in the house bill. this set out to make sure that does not happen in the senate -- they set out to make sure that does not happen in the senate. coal is very powerful. it fuels most of our electricity now. gas is up and coming.
gas reserves are going up by 1/3 or doubling. that is a big lobbying smack down royale. >> i would love to open it up for questions here if people have questions about where the process is going. >> for each of you, in the november election, are there elections that are going to be influenced positively or negatively by either the gulf spill or environmental concerns in general?+ >> i'm trying to think of individual races. yes. >> there are a couple. there are a couple of very vulnerable democrats who voted for the cap and trade system under the house bill -- folks
like tom perriello. he will get attack on this. there are a lot of factors. mary jo kilroy is another very vulnerable democrat in ohio. these are the walking wounded. if the republicans can win these seats, these folks will not have a job next january. if you're looking for categories, those are folks who will be affected negatively. most of the gulf states' lawmakers are fairly safe -- both the democrats and republicans. i did not see where the louisiana and alabama democrat -- i do not see where the louisiana and alabama democrats are in trouble. jo bonner, a conservative republican, the first thing he did after joe barton made his apology was run to the senate and house floor and told john boehner that barton needed to lose his job.
these folks have represented their interests very strongly in the oil spill. some of the republicans are fairly against connie mack for example -- against, connie mack, for example, offshore drilling. i cannot see where the oil spill affects a civic elections. in the broader sense, i think it will hurt -- the oil spill affects specific elections. in the broader sense, i think it will hurt democrats. there is a long summer of watching that oil spill feed every day on tv. regardless of whose fault it is, is a reflection on the party on charge -- on the party in charge. could feed into the larger narrative of how the democrats are running the government. >> it is early to know. the way the public is processing the oil spill is going to take time to play out.
it is true that it is more likely to have an impact on races away from the gulf than in the gulf, especially in terms of people seeing, you know, do our people, our members, are they trying to regulate adequately? our projections being put in place? -- are projections being put in place? the public is still pulling very pro-environment. -- polling very pro-environment. we will see what kind of votes there will be. there will be a comprehensive bill or something less. it is a little early to figure out exactly what the line up there is, especially on the events in the gulf. that is still evolving. it will take a while for people to sort through how they feel about that. >> i think there is a race in florida where a lot of republicans have been going toward support of offshore
drilling kind of gradually -- they have had to do a very sharp. i cannot track crist's take, but my impression is that he had favored driven and now he is not -- drilling and has turned away from that. merkel rubio has not given his very conservative take on things -- marco rubio has not given his very conservative take on things. >> i had forgotten about florida. charlie crist is still the governor. he gets to take an airplane over to the coast and look very concerned. visuals do matter in elections. i have not seenmarc marco rubio touring the beaches yet. florida's beaches matter to the state and to the nation. that is something where it could
have a really big impact. believe it or not, charlie crist is leading by some 10 points in the latest race. did you want to weigh in on the politics? >> i am not a political strategist. it seems to me that, in certain areas, like in my home state of colorado, that they voted for climate change legislation. that may be a subject of discussion with her and our opponent in the future. i do think the policy decisions that the administration makes have an effect on how people view what is happening. i agree with marty on that. that is probably where i would leave it. typically, i do not think environmental issues dominate congressional elections. in most instances, especially where the economy has been hard hit, i think jobs are going to be the primary motivator -- and economic viability.
those are the really important issues of the election. like i said, i am not a political strategist. >> the only place in which this issue could have an impact is if the incumbent, probably a democrat, is perceived as making a vote that hurt local jobs. i mentioned some of the more industrial, blue-collar types districts, where this could definitely hurt them. >> i also think the joe barton situation has given democrats a way to hit back. i think you're going to be hearing a lot of people in caapaign ads attempt to link republicans 2 joe barton. does candid it smith also think he should apologize to bp? that will give democrats who are kind of slipping a little bit of a footholdd >> there is a general issue
about whether people are too close to industry. there are places where a pro- environmental vote would be helpful. as i said, i think everybody is still figuring out exactly how that is going to play out. obviously, it is different in primaries, which we still have coming up. environmental, labor, and other concerns obviously did cause problems like for blanche lincoln in arkansas, even though she did retain the ability to run for her seat again. >> more questions? back in the back. >> can we get away from politics? what are the chances that this award else bill will proved a like a good -- this oil spill will prove the likelihood of getting [unintelligible]
>> is that moving away from politics? [laughter] again, i think -- the events in the gulf have made it essential that the senate do something on energy. that has put all of these forward again. i think there was already agreement in principle that there needs to be more things done to move forward with energy and alternative energy. we do not think the bills out there were adequate. they were there. there are proposals on the table. there will be looking for ways to do that -- they will be looking for ways to do that, provide incentives, subsidies, all of that to make sure that we can move forward. the question is, are they going to do that in a way that is as
comprehensive as possible? i do not think there is any doubt that more of those efforts will be on the table. the question is how many and how broad. >> question over here. >> the economy and jobs. that as the number one thing on the voters' minds. our important -- how could this affect jobs? >> there are plenty of studies that we often cite -- that the white house sicites which indicate that moving forward to a clean energy environment will improve the job situation. the main study talks about 1.9 million -- i think i have the number right -- and net new jobs. -- 1.9 million net new jobs.
there is concern that we're losing ground in the energy -- in industries that are important for the future of the economy. there is been a long effort to really focus on the job impact -- there has been calling long effort -- a long effort to really focus on the job impact. i think that will be the main focus of argument when they take up this legislation. the mother rhetoric you will hear is "job-killing -- >> the rhetoric you will hear is "job killing, cap and trade." i have not seen studies about how many jobs might be lost. >> that study is a net #. >> that is one side of it that the republicans will have plenty of studies and rhetoric about -- job-killing. >> i think individual members can make good decisions. -- individual members can make good decisions. they may run from one thing to
something else. they hear a lot about that, no doubt about it. >> that will be a large source of debate. that is an improvement. that is the building to the point where it should be -- the bill get into the point where it should be. what scientists are thinking is not really where congressional debate should be. it should worry about the economic impact, what risks people are willing to take -- those are rigid -- those are legitimate subjects of congressional debate. to persuade people that this is not balanced -- this is exactly what a lot of those discussions and decisions will be about. >> other questions? >> we talked for a moment about how strength in the middle is such an important element of getting something enacted on the timeline that we needed to be. -- we need it to be.
a lot of that is strengthening senator lugar and giving a platform for people in the middle to actually agree upon. in many times, that means compromise. what can we afford to compromise in this bill? more importantly, what can we not afford to compromise on? >> the energy bill. any version of the energy bill. we have not seen the bill. like i said earlier -- i use the verb "jammed." it is getting larger as we go. i will let you guys handle it. >> um, so, i guess, i would start by making the obvious comment. i'm not sure i would hear myself saying this. i'm not going to negotiate in public. >> good quote. >> that is why i have never used
it. there are lots of things in terms of mechanisms and so forth that can be decided. we're going to look at what the bill would result in in terms of reductions in carbon pollution, like the movement toward renewable energy and energy efficiency. what affects would actually be likely to have on the ground? -- what effects would it actually be likely to have on the ground? will this result in genuine, measurable results that matter? we're also concerned that it not roll back environmental protections. people have been negotiating for years on this. there are ways to negotiate bills. the house showed one possible way of doing that. there are other things out there.
there are issues of, do you rebate the money is that you get? how do you apportion allowances? how do you do that? how do you make sure that you have kept everybody hole in an equitable way? all of those things can be worked out. they are fundamentals that need to be in place to make a bill worth moving forward. and i you have a couple of balancing acts. you start -- >> you have a couple of balancing acts. you start with the jamming -- seeing how much break the train can carry -- freight the train can carry. how many votes does this gain you? somebody may go to a democrat or republican and say, if you vote against this, you will be targeted in your district or state as refusing to regulate
the oil industry or refusing to stand up to big oil in the wake of this huge spill. there'll be a picture of an oil- soaked pelican. there are any number of ways to reach out to the centrists, by gradually watering down your comprehensive -- your climate section of your bill. the climate bill in the house went way over the of the left -- way over to the left, then to the center, then it has been moving right. the balancing act that you do -- at some point, you start losing liberals. it gets hard to even do a bill without climate. liberals do not want to give away a lot of these pro-
industry measures without getting something. in a lot of cases, this goes back a ways, they're not going to give up things like revenue thingsfo -- things like revenue sharing for r.e.s. you can keep going for stronger cap and trade. you could look for the utility only or something like that. it will not get everybody. the question is, where do you start losing votes on the other end? that is always the question with the big bills. >> i am not here as an advocate for a particular position on this legislation. if you start with the problem, you ask what statutory gap -- you have to decide what the problem is you're looking to resolve, whether it is the oil spill or something much bigger. what gap needs fixing?
you start there. they need to figure out what they can get from it. >> any other questions? >> speaking about the administration trying to jam their -- just how they are acting. i am afraid that -- a pass now, read later thing is going on. we spoke about the climb the bill and the things that the democrats want to add to it. john kerry is still pushing things. the buzzword is jobs. i think on monday there was something about a congressman and obama having a one-on-one that was a he said, he said
situation. it was about sending all the troops to the border. i'm afraid that we are -- democrats are waiting to put all of this stuff into one huge bill while the oil is still flowing in running our shores. do you guys feel like the democrats are using the oil spill to pass whenever they want to -- whatever they want to? they are not working on the border. >> obviously i do not know anything about the dispute between senator kyl and the president on immigration. that being said, first of all, we're very far from the problem of democrats passing anything that they want to. but, to get to the part of your
-- the heart of your question, i think the president made an important point that is really inarguable. the reason we have problems with oil is that we are dependent on oil -- imported oil. our dependence has gone up since the oil crisis of the 1970's. that is a fundamental issue in terms of national security, jobs, and the environment. it is not like the issue is -- connecting this to immigration i s -- is fundamentally and inherently connected. is not -- it is not a contorted leap of logic. if your concern is drilling deeper into the ocean for oil, the way to solve that fundamentally is to not need as much oil. it is almost a tautology. it is not a leap.
that is legit. question is what the political traffic will bear. our hope is that we can get beyond warring about the narrow but essential -- worrying about the narrow, but a central regulatory fixes. -- but the central -- but essential regulatory fixes. i do not think this is trying to jam anything. theepresident ran on this issue. is not something sudden they thought of because of the oil -- it is not something sudden they thought of because of the oil spill. this issue has been before congress for 20 years. the issue is big and complicated, therefore the bill is big and complicated. there is no way to solve a major national problem with a 2
doebele 0 -- 2 w 0 -- two-page bill. you could grant the president and dictatorial authority -- president dictatorial authority, least of all the president would advocate that. he does not want to get stuck with that. there are fabrications to try to get -- to try to get to the public's natural need to want someone to be simple, pretty, with not a lot of horse trading and so forth. it is great in a fantasy world. in the real-world, there are legitimate and competing interests which need to be weighed against each other. that is the way that you get to actually solving problems. sitting back and saying, i want something simple. things should only be a page. i just had 1000 lives around the
room and i do not understand how cut myself. -- 1000 lknives around the room and i do not understand how i cut myself. i will just put a band-aid on a. something -- band-aid on it. you could solve civil-rights problems before 1964. the new finally -- then you finally get to the big bill. you got nothing with the small bill. >> i want to follow that up with two points. it is about political capital. the democrats have almost maxed out their political capital. they will not have as many seats after november, whether they lose control of the house or lose several seats in the senate. this is the last gap of their
political capital right now. after the august recess, they will be focused on reelection. very little what did -- will get done. they're mapping out their political capital right now. your attitude is, let's get as it is one of those weird canards that happened during the health care debate. most of them were actually tax bills. the republican congress and the omnibus beijinbudget. this does not hold span in the long water of history. >> what you're calling the dems passing whatever they want -- they cannot do that until they get rid of the 60-vote rule.
they have momentum. rahm emanuel has encapsulated a political maxim more succinctly than anybody before him. this is done by administrations and politicians of both stripes. i think back to president bush trying to pass -- introducing his energy bill amid the california energy crisis, saying, we need to do this because of the california energy crisis. even more suddenly -- substantively, there was president george w. bush's plan for the national forest and having more cutting. before that passed, you heard, if there is no wild fires, we cannot pass this bill. if the west like a bonfire, we
will pass the bill. -- lights up on fire, we will pass the bill. they passed the bill. as far as the restructuring of mms, the agency formerly known as mms, on that battleground -- there will be a battle there. it is part of homeland security, saxby chambliss, max cleland. you do not redo an agency without some bitter battles over obscure topics. the battle lines have not been drawn. that goes back to one of those things about, how do you, taking into account all the information, how do you do it in one month? maybe they will pass it and we'll be fixing this for the next 10 years. >> we have talked about what
should and should not be added. i do not agree that -- i agree completely that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign sources for energy. i do not necessarily agree that drilling deeper has been the mantra. they drilled on the intercontinental shelf because that was the area available for leasing. there can be discussion about other places and processes as we look forward. >> i apologize. i have recently graduated in journalism. these are my thoughts from the whole panel, instead of a pin pointed question. i am sure the public would enjoy a picture book of what the bill should be.
>> congress would come at t, to. [laughter] >> we're talking about how the bill might be introduced before the august recess. waiting that long -- not that -- i understand that it is a long process. in the public eye, they want instant gratification. they always want a quick fix. it is just going to be such a large bill. by the end of it, constituents are going to be calling in to their congressman to tell them to vote for it because we might as well have some sifix. i fear that there is going to be so much time taken up -- i understand it should be a long process, but i want to make sure we get it right the first time. >> we never get it all right the first time. it is not possible.
>> the constitution was not right the first time. we have amended it 18 times. the same with the articles of confederation. you get it as right as you can. you make educated choices. each of these things build on a long history. if we were just starting to think about this for the first time, then that would be a huge problem for a lot of reasons. we're not. these bills are building on the a huge amount of work, a huge amount of debate, previous efforts, including in the senate, previous votes on gun legislation -- on climate legislation. you're not starting from scratch. it will be interesting -- one last note on that. the problem has not been the public saying, it is a big bill, let's just get it over with. the public is very skeptical a big bills right now. the burden of proof is on congress to show that what the -- to show what the elements
are, why they're necessary. i think it can be done in a comprehensive energy bill. i do not think the problem is what the public is saying. the public is angry if you do something or if you do nothing. that is a very difficult political environment. on the narrower question about mms -- i am not sure this will degenerate into a huge debate. >> i think we're running out of time. >> it would be interesting to see, though. >> i want to double everybody for joining us today. i want to thank our panelists. mike, david, and david. marty, our moderator. thank you all for joining us. [applause] >> feel free to stick around for a few minutes. there are refreshments.
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> starting monday, watched the confirmation hearing for the supreme court nominee, elena kagan, who will testify in front of the senate judiciary committee as she is questioned about her career and experience, as she aims to replace justice john paul stevens who is retiring. watch the hearings live beginning at 12:30 eastern on c- span3, c-span radio, and c- span.org. watch each today's -- day's reair at 9 eastern on c-span 2. >> in his weekly address, president obama outlined some of the provisions in the financial regulation bill passed on friday. it includes the creation of an agency to oversee mortgages, credit-card agreements, and
other financial products. he is followed by the gop weekly address delivered by house budget committee senior republican paul ryan, who criticize democrats for failing )jjip @ >> i am traveling to toronto to meet members of the g-20. i hope we can build on the progress we made at last year's g-20 summits by coordinating our global, financial reform efforts to make sure a crisis like the one for which we're still recovering never happens again. we have made great progress towards passing such reform here at home. as i speak, we're on the cusp of enacting the toughest financial records since the great depression. i have to tell you why these are so important. we're still digging ourselves out of an economic crisis that happen because there was not strong enough oversight on wall street appeared we cannot build a strong economy in america over the long run without ending the status quo and laying a new foundation for growth and prosperity. that is what the wall street performs currently making their
way through congress will help us do. reforms represent 90% of what i propose when i took up this fight will put in place the strongest consumer protections in history, create an independent agency with an independent director and an independent budget for enforcement. credit-card companies will no longer be able to mislead you with pages and pages of fine print. you'll not be subject to hidden fees and penalties or the predatory practices of unscrupulous lenders. instead, we will make sure that credit card companies, mortgage companies -- they will play by the rules. will be empowered with easy-to- understand forms and a clear and concise information you need to make the best financial decisions for you and your family. wall street reform will also strengthen our economy and a number of ways. it will make our system more transparent by bringing the kinds of complex trades that helped trigger this crisis -- trades in a $600 trillion derivatives market -- finally into the light of day. that is what -- and will enacted
what is called the volcker rule to make sure that banks cannot engage in risky trades for their own profit. we will create the resolution of story to help winddown -- resolution 4authority. we will help make sure that mean streak is never again held responsible for wall street's mistakes -- that means street -- that main street is never held responsible for wall street's mistakes. we want to recover a everydime of -- recover every dime of taxpayer money. some fought tooth and nail to preserve the status quo, spending millions of dollars and hiring an army of lobbyists to stop the report in its tracks. we refused to back down and we kept fighting. we're on the verge of victory. i urge congress to take us over
the finish line and send me a reform bill i can sign into law, so we can empower people and help prevent a financial crisis like this from happening again. >> i am paul ryan. i serve as a top republican on the house budget committee. yes, congress does have a budget committee. i'm afraid it has not been very busy this year. in fact, the house majority leader announced that democrats are canceling this year's budget. instead of bringing out of control spending that has pushed our national debt past 13 trillion dollars -- $13 to and, they have made it clear they will raise taxes on middle-class families -- $13 trillion, they have made it clear they will families. they have no priorities and no restraint. all the taxing and borrowing continues unchecked. with this budget failure, a first in the modern era, democrats are missing a critical opportunity to provide the
fiscal discipline that economists say is necessary to create private-sector jobs and boost our economy. this unprecedented budget collapse also sends a clear signal to american families struggling to meet their own budgets that washington does not realize the severity of its spending problem. democrats said their decision is best for the country. it is not. with the political season upon us, democratic leaders believe it is better to take a pass them to pass a budget -- than to pass a budget. americans are asking where are the jobs? they're draining resources from our economy. the debt will exceed the size of our entire economy in the next 18 months. we have run out of road to kick the can down. if this is really about the future of our country, leaders should make the tough choices they promised they would, put more obligation before political expedience, and focus on what is in the best interest of the next
generation, not the next election. this is the time to make tough choices, not run from them. to that end, republicans on the budget committee have already identified $1.30 trillion in specific spending cuts we could implement right now to make washington more -- washington do more with less and help small businesses put people back to work. these are simple ideas. they would help us focus on creating more jobs, not more debt. we also proposed reducing federal employment and freezing government pay. instead of growing government, we need to restart the engine of economic growth. of course, this is just a starting point. much more needs to be done to set our nation on a sustainable, economic course. we need to cut back our spending now so that we can boost the economy and work together to address our nation's long-term fiscal challenges. it is our shared responsibility to take on the challenges before us to make sure there -- that our kids and our grandkids have
a better life. let's begin this work today. let's make sure we did not retreat to the same failed policiis. let's make the tough, 4-looking was a that will restore the promise and prosperity of this exceptional nation. let's do it together. thank you for listening. >> sunday on "washington journal," tony fratto and ross eisenbrey. then senator russell pearce talks about border and immigration issues. after that, winston porter discusses how waste from the gulf allied else bill is being cleaned up and disposed of. also, your e-mails and phone calls. "washington journal" -- live, 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> next, homeland security
secretary janet napolitano announces new efforts to improve border security and immigration enforcement. she is joined by officials from the customs and border office. this event was held by the center for strategic and international studies. this is one hour. >> welcome, everyone. we want to thank you for coming to this really terrific event. my name is rick nelson. i am the director of the homeland security and counterterrorism program here at csis. we're honored and privileged to have secretary napolitano here to talk about securing the borders. i would first like to thank the sponsor of this forum. they have supported this forum throughout the year. we appreciate that. obviously, a lot has been going on in the world of border security, particularly in the southwest area. as a former governor of arizona and the new homeland
security secretary, we will have a unique perspective on this. secretary napolitano is going to go first. we have a tight timeline. when she is done with her remarks, we will go forward. we will have questions. i will be the moderator. i will run a tight ship year there will be no statement and answers. -- i will run a tight ship. there will be no statements and answers. i'm going to introduce secretary napolitano. thank you very much for coming. [applause] >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here. thank you to the sponsors and hosts. one addition i would make to
the program as that, after i sit down, before questions, we will introduce the other panelists who come from the direct hands- on, front-line responsibilities in the areas i am going to speak about. i want to thank john morton and david aguilar, as well as the experts in this area who are here today. thank you. i am happy to welcome robert davis. he is a great community leader in the city of san jose. he is doing some important and novel things with the police department there. the association has been a great partner with the department of homeland security.
we are proud the 56 big-city police chiefs that you represent and the more than 800,000 sworn officers that are present in those departments. thank you, chief. before i open it up for discussion, i would like to speak about some of the immigration and border-related challenges that law enforcement faces. first, let me begin by saying that border security and enforcement is primarily the responsibility of the federal government. unfortunately, for decades, we have not had an effective strategy that is border-wide. we have not devoted the attention, personnel, or resources that have been required to cover the border all the way from brownsville to san diego. from day one, the obama administration has taken its
responsibility here seriously. it has developed and implemented a clear strategy to obtainfá that personnel, those resources, that equipment, that technology. it is truly that which is required to meet the responsibility along our nation's border. i want to discuss our strategy and the strong and smart taken to improve -- that dhs has already taken to improve enforcement. i would like to detail what progress we have made and the next steps we're taking. let's begin with the current challenges. our southwest border states have endured more than their share of challenges. i know this from personal experience, having worked directly on border issues since 1993, first as the united states attorney for arizona, then as the arizona attorney general, then as the governor of arizona, and now, of course